Skip to content

Month: October 2011

Scared — Eric Cantor afraid to face the music

Scared

by digby

Another Republican bravely faced the Occupy Wall Street protesters today offering his speech a about income inequality to a throng of people who disagree with him:

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) praised the protesters from the stage for “fighting on the fighting lines of what we know is a battle for our democracy.” After his speech, he told TWI that the protests represented an “awakening in America.”

“People are beginning to wake up and see a country they don’t really recognize,” said Cantor.

Oh wait. That was Cantor talking about the Tea Party at the Values Voter summit back in 2009. This is what happened today:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has abruptly canceled a speech planned for this afternoon at the University of Pennsylvania that was meant to lay out the GOP’s plans to address income inequality. While the university gave no reason for the cancellation, CNN is reporting that Cantor canceled after the university decided to make the speech open to the public. Cantor had signed up for a “selected audience.” The speech was seen as a response to the 99 Percent movement, and Occupy Philadelphia had organized a march from City Hall to the school.

It’s a terrible thing to allow the rabble to attend a speech defending the malefactors of great wealth. What’s next? Democracy?

.

Sophisticated Strategery

Sophisticated Strategery

by digby

Smart:

Occupy Wall Street held back from rejecting participation in the current American political system Wednesday night when the General Assembly — the group’s main decision-making body — tabled an official resolution to refuse support for both the Democratic and Republican parties.

It’s a sign that the consensus-driven mass of protesters in downtown Manhattan are more concerned with keeping their strategic options open than completely severing ties with a political order they see as fundamentally compromised.

“The Democratic and Republican parties do not represent the people because they’ve been bought and corrupted by Wall Street, and the occupation does not support their candidates,” read the statement, which seemed driven by concern on the part of activists that official support from the national Democratic party — whose leaders have already tentatively embraced the cause — could destroy the movement’s independence.

“The mainstream corporate media is trying to dismiss this movement,” said a member of the “We Will Not Be Co-Opted” Working Group as the proposal was offered. “They are constructing a narrative that we are the puppets of the Democratic Party. The Tea Party was co-opted by the Republican Party; we will not be co-opted by the Democratic Party.”

Activists are plainly sick of a political culture where leaders of both parties take massive donations from financial companies. But the failure to pass the resolution seemed to indicate a recognition on the part of many that one party is more beholden than the other; indeed, reports that Barack Obama’s fundraising from Wall Street is down sharply compared to his 2007-08 campaign provide ammunition for those Democrats who argue that the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation passed last year was a real win for consumers over big business.

“To be clear, we are in a very good position,” said an activist opposed to the resolution in its current form. “Never in my life has a political party been trying to co-opt my agenda! We’re doing very well. We’re reframing the discussion, like certain groups on the other side have been doing for 40 years. If we want 99% to be with us, that includes a lot of people who, for their own reasons, have determined it’s important to engage the political parties that exist. This includes a lot of effective communities. I don’t think now is the time to put up barriers to potential allies.”

I’m not a big fan of Ronald Reagan, but I thought he was very politically canny for saying “I don’t endorse anyone, they endorse me.” That’s how the OWS should see it too. It’s fine if those sympathetic to either political party endorse their agenda — and it doesn’t mean they endorse the political party in return. In a process like OWS, you can only be co-opted if you want to be co-opted.

(And by the way — the Tea Party was not “co-opted” by the Republicans. They were already highly partisan Republicans who saw the need to re-brand their affiliation because George W. Bush had tainted the party so badly. This is a dangerous and stupid myth. OWS couldn’t be more different and I hope they realize it.)

It’s unknown where this is is leading and it’s always possible that it will develop into a revolutionary force that aims to overthrow the entire system. But it’s far away from that at the moment and the smart thing is to remain political but above politics — that is, welcome anyone who agrees with their goals and simply ignore those who don’t. It’s early days and there’s no reason to follow anyone’s agenda, even including one set forth by those who hate both political parties.

Update: I think this is a sign of the next phase, and it isn’t overtly political, but rather going to be a fight for interpretation and framing:

Goldman Sachs, once Wall Street’s highest flier, has been grounded, and it does not bode well for the rest of the financial industry or the New York City economy that depends on it.

The bank, both envied and loathed for its ability to churn out huge profits year after year, reported a quarterly loss on Tuesday — its first since the financial crisis and only its second since going public in 1999.

The misstep by the financial leader speaks to what could be a more lasting shift on Wall Street, which has been steadily retrenching over the last 12 months. While protesters a few blocks away were denouncing greed and “too big to fail” banks, the institutions themselves were coming to grips with the current diminished reality.

Banks, required by regulators to discontinue high-profit businesses like proprietary trading, reduce borrowings and hold more capital, may no longer be able to produce the supercharged earnings that were common before the financial crisis.

Although Wall Street has not changed in some significant ways — top executives are still receiving huge pay packages and its lobbyists continue to have sway in Washington — the industry is facing forces of change unlike anything since the Great Depression. Trading operations are muted. Risk-taking is tempered. And boring businesses are back in vogue.

“These firms are going back to the traditional investment banking model of the 1980s and early 1990s,” said Tom Marsico of the mutual fund firm Marsico Capital Management, once a large owner of financial stocks who shed investments in Goldman and other banks this year.

This is a feint. It’s undoubtedly true that Wall Street is feeling the effects of a protracted downturn along with some new pressures from regulations. Boo hoo. But I would bet that this is a result of them finally realizing that acting like asses has bought them a much bigger world of hurt than they bargained for. They are going to launch a full scale PR strategy now in the hopes that they can convince the people that they need to stop the pressure or end up hurting the economy … and themselves. The pushback is coming and Occupy Wall Street would be wise to have a response ready for that. And they should keep the pressure on.

.

The Hand of the Free Market by David Atkins

The Hand of the Free Market
by David Atkins (“thereisnospoon”)

Rupert Murdoch looks set to face the music from NewsCorp investors over the phone hacking scandal:

The gathering is expected to be the company’s most contentious in years, with frustrated shareholders taking the microphone to demand accountability after a phone-hacking scandal in Britain that has embarrassed the company.

Investors will also have the chance to vote on the company’s board members, including Mr. Murdoch and his sons, James and Lachlan. While the family’s 40 percent stake virtually guarantees they will be re-elected, the chorus of discontent has put the company in an uncustomary defensive position.

The most forceful, and potentially most ominous protest is likely to come from Tom Watson, the British Labour Party legislator who has led the investigation into phone-hacking at News Corporation’s British newspaper unit. Mr. Watson, who acquired nonvoting proxy shareholder status to attend the meeting, said he planned to accuse the company of engaging in further criminal wrongdoing involving surveillance techniques that extend beyond the phone hacking. He did not discuss potential evidence.

Not that it will really matter, since Rupert still holds all the cards:

Any dissent will largely be symbolic. Mr. Murdoch owns nearly 40 percent of voting shares, and 7 percent belong to Prince Walid bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, who has expressed his support for the board. As many as 30 percent of shareholders are expected to cast votes against Murdoch family members, several analysts estimated. Shareholder activists will dominate the meeting, since large institutional investors do not typically air grievances in such a public forum, analysts said. “There will be a lot of noise, but at the end, not a lot of change,” Mr. Gilmour said.

The invisible hand of the free market will not hold Rupert Murdoch accountable. His shamelessness and ruthlessness in reaching for the lowest common denominator for his media empire means that his businesses will remain mostly profitable no matter how clouded in scandal and deceit they may be. Shareholders won’t hold Mr. Murdoch accountable any more than shareholds held AIG or its executives accountable.

That sort of thing would require the firm hand of government. Which is exactly why men of Rupbert Murdoch’s caliber want to destroy government’s ability to act against them.

.

The Very Serious Austerians

The Very Serious Austerians

by digby

Ari Berman has written another must-read piece, this time on the “austerity class” and its bizarre ascendance at a time when they are most destructive. He describes a symposium at the New America Foundation last month

The hearing began with an alarming video of top policy-makers describing the national debt as “the most serious threat that this country has ever had” (Alan Simpson) and “a threat to the whole idea of self-government” (Mitch Daniels). If the debt continues to rise, predicted former New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici, there would be “strikes, riots, who knows what?” A looming fiscal crisis was portrayed as being just around the corner.

The event spotlighted a central paradox in American politics over the past two years: how, in the midst of a massive unemployment crisis—when it’s painfully obvious that not enough jobs are being created and the public overwhelmingly wants policy-makers to focus on creating them—did the deficit emerge as the most pressing issue in the country? And why, when the global evidence clearly indicates that austerity measures will raise unemployment and hinder, not accelerate, growth, do advocates of austerity retain such distinction today?

An explanation can be found in the prominence of an influential and aggressive austerity class—an allegedly centrist coalition of politicians, wonks and pundits who are considered indisputably wise custodians of US economic policy. These “very serious people,” as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wryly dubs them, have achieved what University of California, Berkeley, economist Brad DeLong calls “intellectual hegemony over the course of the debate in Washington, from 2009 until today.”

Its members include Wall Street titans like Pete Peterson and Robert Rubin; deficit-hawk groups like the CRFB, the Concord Coalition, the Hamilton Project, the Committee for Economic Development, Third Way and the Bipartisan Policy Center; budget wonks like Peter Orszag, Alice Rivlin, David Walker and Douglas Holtz-Eakin; red state Democrats in Congress like Mark Warner and Kent Conrad, the bipartisan “Gang of Six” and what’s left of the Blue Dog Coalition; influential pundits like Tom Friedman and David Brooks of the New York Times, Niall Ferguson and the Washington Post editorial page; and a parade of blue ribbon commissions, most notably Bowles-Simpson, whose members formed the all-star team of the austerity class.

There is at least one more name to that illustrious group, I’m sorry to say.

Obama and his main economic advisers (Tim Geithner, Orszag, Larry Summers) were devotees of former Clinton Treasury Secretary and Goldman Sachs/Citigroup alum Rubin, who co-founded the pro–Wall Street Hamilton Project think tank at the Brookings Institution in 2006. The Hamiltonians had warned of “the adverse consequences of sustained large budget deficits” during the Bush administration and advocated “painful adjustments,” namely cuts to social insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare in exchange for more liberal policies like tax increases and healthcare reform. Obama entered office with the Hamilton plan in his back pocket.

At the beginning of Obama’s presidency, Richard Nixon’s famous line “We are all Keynesians now” seemed more relevant than ever. But though Obama initially advanced a Keynesian-lite stimulus plan, which economists on the left and right agreed was imperative, the deficit was never far from the president’s mind.

In February 2009, just weeks after the stimulus passed, Obama pivoted to the deficit, holding a Fiscal Responsibility Summit at the White House and assuring Blue Dog Democrats he supported a special deficit-reduction commission. “We feel like we’ve found a partner in the White House,” said Blue Dog co-chair Charlie Melancon. The austerity class swiftly co-opted the new administration. The CRFB, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and Pew Charitable Trusts launched a special commission in 2009 calling for mandatory spending caps and debt limits to put the United States in an “automatic, fiscal straitjacket.” Its recommendations formed the basis for last year’s Bowles-Simpson commission.

But you knew that.

I hope this piece is widely read among the Villagers, particularly among the journalists. I suspect that the vast majority of them simply think that deficit fever is some sort of received wisdom and haven’t ever thought to put the pieces together before. This piece spells it out for them.

The good news is that Occupy Wall Street has sucked all the oxygen out of this discussion and the herd has finally turned its attention to jobs and the Bigger Picture. This change of agenda could have happened earlier if one of the political parties had wanted to do it, but they were both happy to indulge in onanistic deficit fetishism and so the people finally had to step in and grab the …er, human microphone.

Austerity vs Prosperity is the essence of the fight right now and it’s finally being engaged. No thanks to the political class.

.

It isn’t just the unemployed

It isn’t just the unemployed

by digby

The latest on pay from David Kay Johnston

There were fewer jobs and they paid less last year, except at the very top where, the number of people making more than $1 million increased by 20 percent over 2009.

The median paycheck — half made more, half less — fell again in 2010, down 1.2 percent to $26,364. That works out to $507 a week, the lowest level, after adjusting for inflation, since 1999.

The number of Americans with any work fell again last year, down by more than a half million from 2009 to less than 150.4 million.

More significantly, the number of people with any work has fallen by 5.2 million since 2007, when the worst recession since the Great Depression began, with a massive taxpayer bailout of Wall Street following in late 2008.

This is why people get frantic in this economy even when they are employed. Not only is it nearly impossible to leave a job they hate, they are falling behind even though they are working as hard as ever. And if they have any debt, this picture looks even worse.

.

Half in love with death

Half in love with death

by digby

These pro-lifers are on a roll today:

Candidate for Senate and Former GOP Governor and presidential candidate Tommy Thompson:

The candidate gave credit to a fellow Wisconsin Republican’s proposals for Medicare. “I think Paul Ryan is going at it in the right direction. I support Paul as far as he went but I believe there are other things that need to be done. I would set it up so that individuals, when they reach age 55, would have a choice. If they want to stay in the Medicare system, let them stay. But if they want to go into a new system, let them go in and get subsidized to the extent that they can buy their own personal health insurance.”
[…]
Thompson also spoke candidly on the role of end of life costs play in the Medicare budget. He said costs incurred in the last six months of patients’ lives account for 28 percent of it. “What happens? Mother or father or grandpa and grandma, you’ve been away, you haven’t done very much. Children come home, mother or father’s on their deathbed, they feel guilty because they haven’t being paying attention to mother or father. Let’s face it. So they say “let’s do everything we can for mother or father. Don’t spare the costs.”

And to think it was only a couple of years ago that the Republican Party was having a collective nervous breakdown over Medicare paying for consultations on the living will. And now Thompson here seems to be in favor of not only destroying Medicare but encouraging kids and grandkids to stop “feeling guilty” for literally pulling the plug on Grandma.

Remember when Peggy Noonan wrote this?

They seem to have fallen half in love with death.

What does Terri Schiavo’s life symbolize to them? What does the idea that she might continue to live suggest to them?

Why does this prospect so unnerve them? Again, if you think Terri Schiavo is a precious human gift of God, your passion is explicable. The passion of the pull-the-tube people is not.

With the cheering for executions and the applauding for letting the uninsured die,praising women for choosing death rather than abortion — and now Thompson saying that medical costs are high because people feel too guilty to pull the plug — well, that sure seems like a long time ago, doesn’t it?

.

Right to choose — to die

Right to choose — to die

by digby

Is Herman Cain pro-choice or is he anti-abortion and just thinks there should be an exception for rape and incest? It’s hard to know from this exchange:

MORGAN: Abortion. What’s your view of abortion?

CAIN: I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances. And here’s why —

MORGAN: No circumstances?

CAIN: No circumstances.

MORGAN: Because many of your fellow candidates — some of them qualify that.

CAIN: They qualify but —

MORGAN: Rape and incest.

CAIN: Rape and incest.

MORGAN: Are you honestly saying — again, it’s a tricky question, I know.

CAIN: Ask the tricky question.

MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?

CAIN: You’re mixing two things here, Piers?

MORGAN: Why?

CAIN: You’re mixing —

MORGAN: That’s what it comes down to.

CAIN: No, it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.

Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.

MORGAN: By expressing the view that you expressed, you are effectively — you might be president. You can’t hide behind now the mask, if you don’t mind me saying, of being the pizza guy. You might be the president of United States of America. So your views on these things become exponentially massively more important. They become a directive to the nation.

CAIN: No they don’t. I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.

MORGAN: That’s a very interesting departure —

I have a sneaking suspicion that he thinks that rape and incest are the only exceptions, but he forgot for a minute that his libertarianesque odes to freedom from government interference don’t apply to pregnant women. (This is where you refer to the “sanctity of life,” not “liberty.”) I can understand why he’s a little bit addled there because being anti-abortion while screaming “freedom and liberty” every five minutes to justify everything else is confusing. Not that it stops Ron Paul, mind you. But Cain has a hard time keeping all this straight even on easier issues than abortion rights.

I think what interests me about this flap is that all over the internet today we have people implying that being against abortion except in cases of rape and incest is a pro-choice position. This is incorrect. In fact, until recently, there was virtually nobody in the country except the most fanatical of the fanatical who didn’t believe there should be an exception in case of rape since most people used to understand that forcing women to bear their father/rapists child was cruel and indecent. It’s only very recently that we’ve gotten all this nonsense from the zealots that says otherwise. Herman Cain is just behind the times and hasn’t noticed that the goalposts have moved. Again.

However now that a good number of people seem to believe that it’s a bold “pro-choice” stand to oppose abortion except in cases of rape or incest, I’m guessing this is going to be the next redefinition of “liberty” for women. And it’s chilling:

The conservative website “Hot Air” has published a doting ode to Stacy Crimm, a woman who refused chemotherapy that would save her life in order to not endanger her long awaited pregnancy.

And anti-choice supporters couldn’t be more proud of her.

Tina Korbe writes:

Crimm truly did have a choice: Even if abortion were illegal, she could have opted to receive chemotherapy. That she bravely chose to place her child’s life before her own recalls forcibly to mind why the phrase “a mother’s love” has such resonance. When we talk about abortion, rarely do we talk about the ache many women feel after they choose to abort their babies. Crimm’s physical suffering must have been unimaginable — and, yet, three days before she died, she was able to hold close the fruit of her choice in what Phillips said was a perfect moment. Would that her story might help all mothers see nothing is worth the sacrifice of their own child.

Robin Marty who wrote that up for RH reality Check writes:

Crimm did have a choice, and acted out on her own wishes. But when you switch that to “nothing,” including the life of the mother, is worth ending a pregnancy, well, then that’s not really a choice, is it?

No, and it’s not meant to be.

“God created Adam lord of all living creatures, but Eve spoiled it all. Women should remain at home, sit still, keep house and bear children. And if a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing; she is there to do it.” — Martin Luther

Update: to be clear, it is pro-choice to be against abortion for yourself but in favor of letting other people decide for themselves. Lot’s of pro-choice Catholics and others take that position. That may be Cain’s position too, although I doubt it. I think he was saying that people should be able to decide for themselves in cases of rape or incest, which is not the pro-choice position. It’s what used to commonly be the anti-abortion position. As I said, he’s behind the times.

.

Tea Party vs OWS

Tea Party vs OWS

by digby

I have a new long piece up at Al Jazeera today on the Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street

I suppose it was inevitable that the burgeoning Occupy Wall Street movement would be compared with the Tea Party, but the level of misunderstanding and myth surrounding the latter’s “populist” bona fides is surprising to even the most cynical observer.

There may be surface similarities between the two uprisings, but they actually represent two opposing populist worldviews, whose only philosophical resemblance to one another is their belief that they speak for “the people” against the elites. While both movements are mainly concerned with economic issues, their beliefs about the causes and solutions they propose couldn’t be more different.

One of the central myths about the Tea Party is that it came about as a reaction against the Wall Street bailouts. It’s true that there were some scattered “Tea Parties” around the Ron Paul campaign in 2008, but virtually everyone agrees that the movement was really galvanised by a famous rant from CNBC anchor Rick Santelli from the trading floor of the Chicago commodities exchange.

read on …

.

The Cain Conundrum by David Atkins

The Cain Conundrum
by David Atkins (“thereisnospoon”)

October 2011 marks two events in the Republican Party that political observers from ten years ago would have claimed were utterly impossible: first, an African-American man is leading in the polls for the Republican nominee for president. Second, the same GOP frontrunner openly admits he wants to hike taxes on most Americans.

That is seriously revolutionary in the political landscape, and should cause intelligent political observers to recalibrate their assumptions about the Republican Party on the issues of taxes and race. The Republican Party has long been assumed to rely on racial resentment and voters’ own distrust of government and hatred of taxes to win elections. But Herman Cain’s meteoric rise certainly disproves that thesis, at least viewed in simplistic terms. It is difficult to ascribe overt racism to a Party base that would push an African-American to the front of its field. And it is well-nigh impossible to claim that anti-tax fervor animates a portion of the electorate that advocates raising taxes on most Americans, especially those of modest means.

This is not to say that racism is not still a central component of the American conservative mindset. But consider the community of Free Republic, one of the most arch conservative blogs on the Internet. On the one hand, this is the community that engages in openly white supremacist conversations like this one, in which many Freepers consider the inevitable relegation of Caucasians to minority status in America as synonymous with the downfall of all Western civilization. But it is also the same community that steps in to strongly defend African-American Herman Cain and his 9-9-9 tax increase proposal. Something is going on here that defies traditional analysis of the conservative base.

There is a strong case to be made that two trends have marked a significant change in Republican politics. The first and most important of these changes is the renewed popularity of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism in conservative circles. The shocking rise of rodeo clown Glenn Beck made it clear that the Bircher movement within the GOP had come out of the shadows and into a prominent–perhaps even leading–role. In the 1950s and 1960s, the image of a Republican was the grumpy grandfather who remained rooted in status quo reality even as the young hippie kids dreamed of a better world. Democrats, meanwhile, were still hampered by old alliances with the racist Dixiecrats who would switch allegiances to Republicans with the rise of the civil rights movement. There was little room in this world for the modern Movement Conservative. So along came Richard Nixon and the politics of race resentment, followed by the rise of a newly powerful and resurgent set of business interests in the 1970s. Also prominent during this period was the rise of the religious right and the church group infrastructure that continues to deliver millions of votes to Republican candidates.

But Republicans have two problems now: first, overt racial resentment is increasingly uncool. Even sublimated dogwhistles are regularly called out into the open. Second, religious conservatism, while deeply powerful in certain areas, is localized mostly to the Bible Belt and lightly populated areas of the Mountain West. Christian fundamentalism is still a huge driving force in the GOP, but it is not the face of the conservative movement anymore. If it were, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann would be the GOP frontrunners.

No, the new conservative religion is the cult of Objectivism. GOP legislators and even conservative Supreme Court members force Rand’s books on their clerks and staff members. A John Galt who has never held elected office currently leads in the polls–the second such dalliance Republican voters have already made with a corporate CEO this cycle alone.

The cult of Objectivism doesn’t care about race or taxes. It cares about rewarding what it views as “producers” while punishing “parasites.” In the Objectivist view, the majority of the public are parasites leeching off the work of wealthy producers, and it is the role of government such as it must exist to eliminate the constraints that parasites supposedly place on producers. This is a step far beyond Reagan’s supply-side economics. It’s a deliberate and forceful declaration of class war, one in which a massive tax increase on 80% of Americans makes perfect sense.

The second broad trend in the GOP has been the sublimation of racism from its most simple and ugliest form, to a less obvious cultural racism. The “token black friend” has long been a running joke about conservatives, but having grown up in conservative areas, I have known a good number of people like this. These are people who really do have friends of other races whom they respect precisely because, in their minds, they don’t act like those people. And in fact, the example of their minority “friend” only reinforces their broader cultural and racial resentments. The successful black “friend” becomes the standard by which it is OK to disfavorably compare entire minority communities.

It takes a warped mind to get around this way of thinking, but in the modern conservative mindset, supporting Herman Cain is a way both of communicating that they don’t hate all black people, as well as of holding up a role model to whom they can point and say “if he can do it, so can you–so buck up and stop whining for handouts.” The same conservative community can therefore both view the demographic decline of White America with alarm, and welcome Herman Cain because to them, Herman Cain is culturally “White.”

Progressives must come to terms with the fact that the 35% or so of Americans who make up the conservative base have been radicalized far beyond the point of no return. They are activist class warriors on behalf of the top 1% of “producers.” They are activist culture warriors against minority communities who will happily advance minority figureheads as exceptional standardbearers in order to prove their point.

We are now a nation hopelessly divided. On one side is a large faction of people who understand that the financial classes and the super-wealthy are mostly a parasitic class; that the middle class has much more in common with the poor than it does with the wealthy; that workers produce wealth, and that demand produces prosperity; that poor communities are disadvantaged not by the inherent failings of their people but by the oppressive nature of their circumstances; and that we humans and creatures of this earth are all in the same boat together.

On the other side is a large group of people who believe that over half of Americans are parasitic dead weight who should not be allowed to vote; that the interests of the middle class are aligned with the interests of hedge fund managers; that only a select few very wealthy people produce society’s goods; that poor communities are poor through their own moral failings; and that the society’s “producers” should behave however they please to people and creatures unfortunate enough to find themselves at their mercy.

And in the middle are about 20% of Americans paying too little attention to have much of an opinion either way.

Bipartisanship as we have known it is dead. It is not coming back. The two major political factions in America are farther apart now than they have been at any time since the Civil War. The issues that separate the country are much more fundamental than simple race resentment and minor disagreements over tax and spending policy, issues that could be resolved by a greater effort to listen to and understand the other side. The divide is profound and existential.

And Herman Cain’s advance to the top of the Republican field proves it.

.

Criminal

Criminal

by digby

There are only 1400 of these magnificent creatures alive. They killed 18 of them in Ohio today.

I cannot understand why anyone should be allowed to keep endangered species in a private zoo. But even assuming that property worshiping Americans won’t stand for such a ban, no one should be able to do this after having been cited over and over again for animal cruelty and abuse. What a horrible story.

.